Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Summer Doldrums

[strattonius]

His shooting percentage regressing is different from his development regressing. He can still maintain similar goalscoring if he levels up as a player and can hold down a regular top 6 roll. But that's still a what-if. He's not going to score on 20% on his shots again.

Just saying manage your expectations. I'd prefer to use him as a trade chip while his value his high rather than risk his value depreciating in a snakebit stretch. Doesn't mean I dislike him as a prospect or young player - I think he has genuine upside, which means he's a good trade chip.

Just for added prospective, we have this argument every year a player has a hot goal scoring season with an unsustainable shooting percentage. Last guy we went through this with was Kuzmenko. Probably going to go with it with Boeser too, for anyone who thinks he's a true talent 40 goal guy.

I haven't even said my expectations. I'm just not following the 'ship Hoglander's ass out of town' crowd.

 

[racerjoe]

I haven't even said my expectations. I'm just not following the 'ship Hoglander's ass out of town' crowd.

Thats because NO ONE is saying ship him out... people are saying he is probably our best roster ship to move to get back a piece we need... No one is like wave this bum....

 

[strattonius]

Thats because NO ONE is saying ship him out... people are saying he is probably our best roster ship to move to get back a piece we need... No one is like wave this bum....

Tons of people want to trade him right now.

 

[racerjoe]

Tons of people want to trade him right now.

Yeah for the right piece coming back... not just to trade him.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Low key was hoping Jake would switch numbers, good chance I'm buying a sweater but I'm not too pumped about #74.

 

[bandwagonesque]

I’ve mentioned before how some players (Joshua and Kuzmenko specifically) are low-volume, high-percentage shooters who might not match their highest high years but will probably consistently shoot well above average through their careers because of the kind of shots they’re taking – almost all in high-danger areas very close to the net.

Hoglander is not that. He’s a traditional volume shooter who has consistently shot in the 10-12% range through his career at various levels (including the AHL in 22-23) until he had a massive outlier shooting year last year. It would be extremely surprising if he didn’t regress back toward his career averages next year which holding shots equal would put him in the 12-15 goal range.

I don't have any numbers on it, but it looked to me like the quality of his shots shifted last year and he was getting a lot of good give-and-go looks and breakaways, and finishing far confidently on them than was the case in other years. I am convinced he will hold on so a large proportion of his statistical bounce last year if he has the opportunity.

 

[SelltheTeamFrancesco]

Can’t believe Hughes did not give up his number to Heinen. That is not very captain like.

 

[biturbo19]

Feels like Hoglander is getting under-appreciated here. For his ice time and deployment last year, he is arguably the best depth scoring forward in the league in the first half of the 2023-24 season. His elevation to Petterson's line in my opinion actually hurts him as EP was obviously injured and wasn't anywhere near his normally effectiveness, dragging down Hog with him.

I think most people had recency bias on him based on his poor playoff. I don't doubt there will be some regression on his s%, but I also don't think he is done developing at age 23. He scored 5 more goals than JDB last year with essentially zero useful PP time. We need depth scoring like this to be competitive (how many years we made fun of the Oilers for wasting McDavid's prime by not having any depth scoring?), and even if he gets a raise next summer I think he will be valuable (unless he gets an insanely favorable arbitration award).

I have no complaints if we trade Hog for a young 2nd pairing D, but short of that I would have a tough time seeing him gone for anything else "reasonable".

The real problem with Hoglander isn't that his shooting% is almost certain to regress. Even with that...he's still a very useful bottom-6 pesty forechecker who should still be good for ~15G that he can generate largely by himself. I think if you're leaning on him to be a sustainable 20G+ guy, that's a problem. But if you figure he'll be good for 12-15G - 30-35pts from the bottom-6 though, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that player.

It's just a little bit of a double-edged sword, in that it's terrific that he can produce like that from the Bottom-6 and without a lot of offensive support from linemates. But the flip side is...he plays such a disjointed, out of sync game that it really pigeonholes him into that Bottom-6 role. He just doesn't have the vision, puck distribution skills, creativity, spatial awareness, or ability to play that more "high skill puck possession" game with real Top-6 skilled linemates.

It's not really about Hoglander or Pettersson "dragging the other down". It's about the fact that their games are simply incompatible, and that drags both of them down. The things that Hoglander does so well, work counter the things that Pettersson does best when he's on his game. The latter thrives on possessing the puck, having his line possess the puck, and creatively working the play into dangerous scoring chances with control. Hoglander thrives on his line not having the puck...and being disruptive on the forecheck, capitalizing on broken plays and turnovers with "quick strike" goals back the other way.

Pettersson thrives on play with tons of flow. Hoglander thrives on broken disrupted play. The two concepts just don't really mesh. And consequently, it's never really worked any time it's been tried.

If one more person posts a lineup without Joshua-Blueger-Garland, I’ll mail dog shit in an envelope to Jim Benning.

Word. I swear people must just be doing it because it's summer and they're bored and want a lineup that looks ~different~ and ~unique~ or something. Because i refuse to believe there are that many people out there who can't recognize that Garland + Joshua is easy money, and Bluegers is clearly the perfect complement to what they do.

I'm not altogether mad if it maybe swaps Pius Suter in the middle instead for some reason. I don't really know why, but that also works similarly, though not quite as well. But splitting the two wingers up, or putting them with Pettersson or something silly like that, mail the dog shit imo.

Exactly. No money and we have lots of players.



I really like Blais too as a rough and tumble customer. Hits hard and plays fast. Daniel Sprong is intriguing. What is up with Patches .... is he done or still plying his trade? Would have loved him on the team back in his prime.

Sprong stinks. He is and always has been a total floater. He's not nearly skilled enough to even justify it either. Blais is fine and i'm actually surprised he hasn't landed somewhere yet, but we already have plenty of Bottom-6 Forwards and more down on the farm. It's already going to be a challenge to trim the roster down as it is. No need for more bottom of roster clutter.


Now Patches...i have no idea what's going on with him. If he's finally just sick of rehabbing injuries only to come back and get another. He's basically Wolverine, so i wouldn't ever bet against him playing more...and i'd happily throw out a PTO to see what he's got left in the tank. He'd be nice to have if he came cheap and is still mostly functional...but if he's even gonna keep playing, i'd imagine it's probably with a hand selected US market team somewhere. Doubt we'd enter consideration, but i suppose it wouldn't hurt to reach out to his agent and throw our hat in the ring as a PTO option.

Yeah. Even with a regress in shooting %. An excellent forechecking, cheap bottom 6er that can score has value. I wouldn’t think twice about trading him if we need to add him to get a top 6 F/top 4 D, but we should absolutely not be trading him just because.

I don’t even think his extension would be expensive. I can see him falling into the Pius Suter pay structure where other teams don’t value him enough unless he is cheap.

The bolded is really the crux of it.

If the extension is cheap, reflective of a bottom-6 winger who doesn't contribute anything to any special teams, it's worth examining. But the reality is...he just scored a boatload of goals. Even if he just hits 12-15G this year with some expected regression, he's still going to be staring down arbitration with last year's Shooting% bender year in his back pocket. That's going to leverage to a bigger deal than i think most people would be comfortable with.

Essentially...he's going to have the arbitration case for a de facto "Top-6 Contract" when he lacks the requisite skillset to actually play in the Top-6. That's the awkward discontinuity that has people musing about what a trade scenario might look like.

If his development stagnates I get the anti-Hoglander idea. It just seems everyone is a year ahead of themselves. Everyone is assuming a big regression because of one stat: s%.

I don't even think it's a question that his Shooting% will regress. That's not even really the biggest deal in a vacuum. Even with regression, he's still probably good for 10-15G of largely self-generated offense.

The problem is...as above, that's still going to get him paid a lot more than most people are comfortable with, for a Bottom-6 Forward who isn't that robust defensively, doesn't have much upward flexibility, and doesn't contribute anything at all to Special Teams.

Yes, that's a year away. But it's the middle of summer and there's not much else to talk about. It's also a case where...this might well be the high water mark of his career offensively...so it's worth at least considering what he might be able to fetch in trade if you were to "sell high" on him right now. As opposed to waiting until next summer, where you're staring down the barrel of an arbitration case you want no part of.

 

[F A N]

Gentle reminder Hoglander shot at an unsustainable 20%

Manage your expectations accordingly

He will have to level up as a player to tread water.

Hoglander does need to find a way to generate more (but still quality) shots. He shot at a higher rate his first two seasons here. I've said it before, Hoglander should learn from Garland. If he can create the type of plays Garland makes Hoglander's point totals would shoot up.

 

[VanJack]

The only way teams get better is drafting well, and then if necessary, trading from the standpoint of 'positional strength'.

Hoglander had a breakthrough season last year, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this makes him untradeable or irreplaceable. The Canucks have some young wingers in the system, and Lekerimakki will likely arrive sooner rather than later. And they have hopes for guys like Podkolzin, Bains or even Raty if they decide he's a winger.

So if trading a guy like Hoglander and maybe a draft pick would net you a top-six forward like Martin Necas or another puck-moving d-man, then you'd have to pull the trigger. And so far Allvin is a GM who's prepared to roll the dice if he's convinced he can upgrade the roster with a trade or two.

 

[Jerry the great]

The only way teams get better is drafting well, and then if necessary, trading from the standpoint of 'positional strength'.

Hoglander had a breakthrough season last year, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this makes him untradeable or irreplaceable. The Canucks have some young wingers in the system, and Lekerimakki will likely arrive sooner rather than later. And they have hopes for guys like Podkolzin, Bains or even Raty if they decide he's a winger.

So if trading a guy like Hoglander and maybe a draft pick would net you a top-six forward like Martin Necas or another puck-moving d-man, then you'd have to pull the trigger. And so far Allvin is a GM who's prepared to roll the dice if he's convinced he can upgrade the roster with a trade or two.

we don't have the cap space to make that trade, so you're probably looking at moving Garland + Hoglander out if you want to bring in Necas. I just don't see how that would make sense though. Necas has an intriguing set of tools, but Garland is probably the better all around player....at least he is at ES.

 

[strattonius]

I don't even think it's a question that his Shooting% will regress. That's not even really the biggest deal in a vacuum. Even with regression, he's still probably good for 10-15G of largely self-generated offense.

The problem is...as above, that's still going to get him paid a lot more than most people are comfortable with, for a Bottom-6 Forward who isn't that robust defensively, doesn't have much upward flexibility, and doesn't contribute anything at all to Special Teams.

Yes, that's a year away. But it's the middle of summer and there's not much else to talk about. It's also a case where...this might well be the high water mark of his career offensively...so it's worth at least considering what he might be able to fetch in trade if you were to "sell high" on him right now. As opposed to waiting until next summer, where you're staring down the barrel of an arbitration case you want no part of.

And if Hoglander's development stagnates then i'm board with moving on from a contract that will likely be an over-pay; However, if Hoglander keeps improving his 2 way play along with his excellent hands and board work, we have ourselves a very effective and toolsy bottom 6 fwd that can move up the line up. This is a player that was in Tocchet's doghouse because of his poor positional play to start the year but worked his way up the line-up as the year progressed.

I'm open minded about Hoglander. If he keeps improving maybe we think about a top 4 dman - that would be a huge leap for him at that value. If he stagnates people are dreaming that he will have enough value to extract anything.

 

[F A N]

Look at the Warren Foegele or Jordan Martinook contracts - Suter is very much comparable to those players and I could easily see a team giving him that.

I think the difference is that Suter is perceived as on the small and slow side who isn't good enough to play on the top 6. Foegele is big and fast and coming off a career year on a team that went to the Cup Finals. He got overpaid. Martinook has been healthy the past two years and he has been exceptional. Every team would love to have him on the bottom 6: hard to play against and gives clutch performances in the playoffs.

 

[TruGr1t]

I think the difference is that Suter is perceived as on the small and slow side who isn't good enough to play on the top 6. Foegele is big and fast and coming off a career year on a team that went to the Cup Finals. He got overpaid. Martinook has been healthy the past two years and he has been exceptional. Every team would love to have him on the bottom 6: hard to play against and gives clutch performances in the playoffs.

Suter was signed short-term because there will be players like him in free agency every year on bargain deals (Heinen this year, is not a terrible example, though a winger obviously, and not a checking centre). You just have to be willing to walk on these depth guys. He's one guy I'm not remotely worried about replacing.

 

[kanucks25]

If you can somehow package Hoglander to get a legit top-6 forward or top-4 D-man you absolutely do that.

The problem is how do you fit the cap? Chances are that player will have a decent sized cap hit.

So at this point, it may be tough to find a trade for Hoglander that both fits the cap and makes us better, even if he regresses.

 

[krutovsdonut]

i guess that is the most dynamic post they could find for forbert.

 

[F A N]

Suter was signed short-term because there will be players like him in free agency every year on bargain deals (Heinen this year, is not a terrible example, though a winger obviously, and not a checking centre). You just have to be willing to walk on these depth guys. He's one guy I'm not remotely worried about replacing.

Yep. Perceived middle 6 or bottom 6 players don't tend to get big contracts putting up career offensive years on bad teams. They might get a short term deal from a rebuilding team that needs players but otherwise they're generally better off going to a team that has a good chance of playing some playoff games. Also, while money is a driving factor, fit and role is too. I think that's one reason Blueger re-signed here.

Now things might change. Middle 6 players like Suter and Heinen were squeezed during the flat cap era and there's finally more money for these guys. Still, I think as long as the Canucks are winning we'll be able to attract middle 6 players to sign here on 2 year deals. Outside of some sort of teardown next season, we should be able to replace Suter easily.

 

[rypper]

Where does Nate Smith get off taking a legends number like that. Disrespect.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I haven't even said my expectations. I'm just not following the 'ship Hoglander's ass out of town' crowd.

some people just want to armchair gm trades. if you give them the 1976 montreal canadiens roster they'd be looking to trade steve shutt because his goal to assist ratio is too high.

 

[F A N]

If you can somehow package Hoglander to get a legit top-6 forward or top-4 D-man you absolutely do that.

The problem is how do you fit the cap? Chances are that player will have a decent sized cap hit.

So at this point, it may be tough to find a trade for Hoglander that both fits the cap and makes us better, even if he regresses.

Ya I think the best way is to see if you can pry an underachieving young player away. Columbus is a good target given the "assets" that they have. If they want to make changes there are swaps to be made. I think there were previous reports of Carolina interested in Hoglander so Hoglander to Columbus might work.

 

[iceburg]

It really is that bad...

In the last 20 years the Canucks have drafted 19 players (out of 126 picks) who have since played more than 100 games in the NHL. These 19 players are:

Podkolzin
Hoglander
Hughes
Pettersson
Gadjovich
Boeser
Gaudette
Virtanen
McCann
Demko
Forsling
Horvat
Gaunce
Hutton
Schroeder
Connauton
Hodgson
Grabner
Raymond

Now it's fair to say that 2 to 4 players out of the last 3 drafts should go on to play more than 100. But it's also fair to say that 4 to 5 of the 19 were/are fringe NHLers at best. In other words, in the last 20 years the team has a hit rate of a little over 10% over all rounds. And that comes while drafting 7 times in the top 10 (excluding 2005).

To assure myself that I wasn't just being overly negative I compared with 10 teams at random.

Edmonton 33 drafted players played more than 100 games in NHL
Pittsburgh 30
Washington 32
Montreal 28
Toronto 33
Carolina 36
Florida 29
Los Angeles 43
Anaheim 37
Dallas 31

This is an average of 33 over a range of 28 to 43.

To be clear, I am really hopeful that the current management is committed to drafting and developing players, even though it does feel like draft picks still get traded too easily. As others have said, drafting and developing is the most effective way to have sustained success. Even if that means trading younger players from a position of strength when the team is in a position to win now. But also with a mindset to have a minimum number of roster spots allocated to players on elcs so they can afford to pay and retain more established higher end players on contracts close to market value.

 

[TruGr1t]

Yep. Perceived middle 6 or bottom 6 players don't tend to get big contracts putting up career offensive years on bad teams. They might get a short term deal from a rebuilding team that needs players but otherwise they're generally better off going to a team that has a good chance of playing some playoff games. Also, while money is a driving factor, fit and role is too. I think that's one reason Blueger re-signed here.

Now things might change. Middle 6 players like Suter and Heinen were squeezed during the flat cap era and there's finally more money for these guys. Still, I think as long as the Canucks are winning we'll be able to attract middle 6 players to sign here on 2 year deals. Outside of some sort of teardown next season, we should be able to replace Suter easily.

Yeah, many of these guys are in the league, and they tend to move every 1-2 years.

A certain type of bottom sixer will get the $3M+ deals (ie. Joshua). Usually with size, or elite defensively, or maybe a legit shutdown centre.

If you just want a defensively responsible bottom sixer who can maybe get you 10-15 goals, you should be able to find that basically every summer.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Where does Nate Smith get off taking a legends number like that. Disrespect.

And Forbert taking Big Serge's 27? He'd better be prepared to punch a Manson in the throat.

 

[Nick Lang]

Yeah. Even with a regress in shooting %. An excellent forechecking, cheap bottom 6er that can score has value. I wouldn’t think twice about trading him if we need to add him to get a top 6 F/top 4 D, but we should absolutely not be trading him just because.

I don’t even think his extension would be expensive. I can see him falling into the Pius Suter pay structure where other teams don’t value him enough unless he is cheap.

It's unfortunate our long term planning has been so horrendous. This is the type of player who should be developing and given minutes on the fourth and third line as earned and needed.

We had a player who was just starting to absolutely excel and he immediately goes from AHL,, to 4th, to 1st line in half a season because we have no top 6 wingers, but yet the third line is set in stone. Hard to develop properly when expectations and needs are out of whack. He's a player who should be providing us good contract value but maybe our team structure is pushing him out.

 

[RandV]

I think Hog brings much more than a guy like Sprong (as per your example). Hog is a relentless forechecker, a pest, and (similar to Garland) he brings a ton of energy. He is hard to knock off the puck and, for a smaller guy, he hits a lot. Again, at 23 years old, he isn't done developing. Also, if he does score 20-ish goals and good assist total and play of special teams, he is a legit 1st liner. He clearly isn't there and his pay reflects that, and if he continues to be the same type of player, his pay will continue to reflect that as well. So I'm not sure why Hog has been a bit of an issue with some posters recently?

I'm not sure what people are really expecting here. Hoglander turns 24 this December, and while there are exceptions usually by this age with players what you see is what you get. Right now he's a good guy to have in the bottom/middle six at $1M, but at best you likely end up with someone like Garland and not a legit top six scoring winger.